Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning

Ison, Ray; Röling, N.G.; Watson, Drennan

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.008

Cited by 317 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

268

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientists who work in these settings need support from governments and universities (e.g., access to databases and literature behind paywalls, flexibility to take more time to do research that involves communities), and they must be open as well to communicating their science better to a diversity of audiences. Rewards, incentives, and requirements for scientists to participate in more open, collaborative, and learning-centered processes are also needed (Ison et al 2007;Wolfe et al 2007). In Canada's Mackenzie Basin, for example, the Aurora Research Institute (which assigns permits to conduct scientific research in the Northwest Territories portion of the basin) has developed templates for scientists (natural and social) to use when communicating their research to communities.…”

Section: Science As One Input To Policy Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

Armitage

Loë

Morris

et al. 2015

Ambio

Self Cite

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science-policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science-policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.

show abstract

Section: Science As One Input To Policy Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

Armitage

Loë

Morris

et al. 2015

Ambio

Self Cite

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, historical framing choices currently constrain the activities of the English Environment Agency as it grapples with implementation of a new catchment-based approach because it is administratively not able to deal with water in the landscape (the province of another government body). Most signifi cantly though, past framing has failed to account for the social in relation to the biophysical and, where present, treating it as an add-on rather than integral to the question of what has to be governed (Ison et al 2007 ).…”

Section: Why Start With Framing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have outlined our framing preference for the situations that have to be governed -structurally coupled social-biophysical systems. However, how these might be governed requires another framing choice -here our preference is to see governance situations as akin to "wicked problems" or situations characterised by complexity, uncertainty, interdependencies, and multiple perspectives where what is at issue has to be constructed by concerned stakeholders (Ison et al 2007(Ison et al , 2015a. Thus, what is, or is not, inclusive is related to the locked-in historical features of a situation that can create pathway dependencies and to initial starting conditions associated with a new issue or an emergent concern or crisis.…”

Section: What Makes Governance Inclusive?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as Warner ( 2006 ) found in an assessment of multi-stakeholder platforms in managing catchments, a realistic assessment of their purpose and capacity to achieve this ought to be considered before initiation. A fi nding from SLIM research (Ison et al 2007 ), in which 14 empirical case studies of water governance platforms were undertaken, was that the existence of a multi-stakeholder platform, i.e. of multi-stakeholder institutions, did not guarantee effective performances that could be said to constitute social learning.…”

Section: Integrated Water Resource Management (Iwrm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is a shift underway, driven in part by emergent understandings of the need for climate change adaptation. In the pre-Anthropocene era, many, if not most, of our institutions were built on a belief that there is a fi xed form of knowledge around which a problem can be stabilised and regulations or other governance mechanisms formulated and applied as a fi x (Ison et al 2007 ). This is linked to the pervasiveness of evidence-based decision-making, especially within the medical sciences, and has been historically applied in many other fi elds, such as hydrology.…”

Section: Governance As Praxismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanisms for Inclusive Governance

Ison

Wallis

2016

Global Issues in Water Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How mechanisms for inclusive governance are understood is built on the framing choices that are made about governance and that which is being governed. This chapter unpacks how governance can be understood and considers different historical and contemporary framings of water governance. A framing of "governance as praxis" is developed as a central element in the chapter. What makes governance inclusive is explored, drawing on theoretical, practical and institutional aspects before elucidating some of the different mechanisms currently used or proposed for creating inclusive water governance (though we argue against praxis based on simple mechanism). Finally, the factors that either constrain or enable inclusive water governance are explored with a focus on systemic concepts of learning and feedback. Keywords Water governance • Participation • Institutional arrangements • Social learning • Adaptive management • Framing Scene SettingWe were invited to address the topic of "mechanisms for inclusive governance". In many ways this is a loaded title as it comprises three terms that cannot be taken for granted: "governance", "inclusive" and "mechanism". For us the pivotal term is governance which, as a contested concept, requires an appreciation of how it might be framed and the possible implications of a given framing choice. Expressed in this way, it is also necessary that we say what we mean by "framing" and "framing choice". In turn, our title leaves open, and thus potentially ambiguous, the question of what is being governed -a river, a catchment, a complex adaptive system, etc.

show abstract

Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio‐Hydrology in Cities

Schifman

Herrmann

Shuster

et al. 2017

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of urban hydrologic processes using green infrastructure (GI) has largely focused on storm water management. Thus, design and implementation of GI usually rely on physical site characteristics and local rainfall patterns, and do not typically account for human or social dimensions. This traditional approach leads to highly centralized storm water management in a disconnected urban landscape and can deemphasize additional benefits that GI offers, such as increased property value, greenspace aesthetics, heat island amelioration, carbon sequestration, and habitat for biodiversity. We propose the Framework for Adaptive Socio‐Hydrology (FrASH) in which GI planning and implementation moves from a purely hydrology‐driven perspective to an integrated sociohydrological approach. This allows for an iterative, multifaceted decision‐making process that would enable a network of stakeholders to collaboratively set a dynamic, context‐guided project plan for the installation of GI, rather than a “one‐size‐fits‐all” installation. We explain how different sectors (e.g., governance, nongovernmental organizations, communities, academia, and industry) can create a connected network of organizations that work toward a common goal. Through a graphical Chambered Nautilus model, FrASH is experimentally applied to contrasting GI case studies and shows that this multistakeholder, connected, decentralized network with a coevolving decision‐making project plan results in enhanced multifunctionality, potentially allowing for the management of resilience in urban systems at multiple scales.

show abstract

Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning

Cited by 317 publications

References 25 publications

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

Mechanisms for Inclusive Governance

Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio‐Hydrology in Cities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About